Talk:Gynaeceum

Article Needs Rewrite
80% of this article seems like a feminist/social science theorycrafting about ancient gender roles and interaction rather than a simple factual description of a gynaeceum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarwulf (talk • contribs) 21:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes and relies too much on a few selected sources and opinion without reference - could some expert review and clean this Wikipedia page Shehekan (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I proposed the merger of Gynaeceum and Gynaeconitis, because they are synonyms. --Mdebets (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing context
The description given in the article only really fully applies to upper-class households... AnonMoos (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic content
There's good information in this article, but many sections seem lifted out of an academic essay, are poorly written, too general, or off-topic. Examples:


 * The hijab or veil is seen by some researchers as an extension of the home and functions to protect women from the view of non-kin males. (off-topic)


 * Other social norms found through popularized literature include the idea that the whiteness of the skin of women proved ones status. (off-topic)


 * Dominant in the discourse is the notion of public and private spheres evolving in tandem with the changes to the architectural designs of the home, which suggest the idea of the use of space in facilitating social conditioning in order to maintain social, cultural, political norms. (hard to read academic essay style, no encyclopedic information)


 * According to Sarah Pomeroy, archeologists of the past have been guilty of many biases that have limited the research and understanding of women in antiquity. (maybe relevant, but too general, would be better in a general article (Women in Antiquity? Women in Classical Athens?)

Just making a note here to start a discussion and in case others feel the same way. It think it would be great to remove the non-encyclopedic material, but I don't have time to make extensive changes now. --Kai Carver (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Feminist bias
"According to Sarah Pomeroy, archeologists of the past have been guilty of many biases that have limited the research and understanding of women in antiquity."

This article is guilty of the same sin, it is loaded with feminist bias, that world history must be viewed through the lens of "gender struggle" and that the patriarchy is designed to dominate, subjugate and enslave women. Nonsense.

For example the whole idea of the gynaeceum is viewed as a tool for men to dominate women. Just count how many times "domination" is used. But if the word "protect" is used it gives a whole new meaning.

The ancient world was place of violence, even the modern world is not safe. As Camille Paglia wrote: "Young women today do not understand the fragility of civilization and the constant nearness of savage nature." http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil

Thus if you were going build a house that needed to be protected against a home invasion how would you design it to protect the most vulnerable occupants?

When I sleep with my wife she wants me to be between her and the door, which irritates me because the likelihood of an intruder is nil, but she says "it just makes me feel safer that way." So women like to feel that they are protected even in this modern age.

So please drop the "femsplaining" from this article and it would be a lot more useful.van Lustig (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)